Education Conservancy Reels in Donations for 'Beyond Ranking' Web Site

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
As a long time critic of any ranking systems, which I feel are largely bogus, I do hope the data provided in the Common Data Set would be readily available to students. This data is important to many students and they can prioritize which criteria are most important to them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The nature of the ranking systems will always render them imperfect and prone to criticism. The questions to ask are, "Would be better off today without the pioneering efforts of USnews 25 years ago?" and "Can we trust the schools to deliver transparent data without pressure from outside groups?" </p>

<p>I believe that considering that in December 2007, it is STILL hard to find verifiable and useful data about the admission for the class of 2011, we know the answers to the above questions. Some schools find it easy to upload their CDS forms as soon as they become available; others go through extreme lengths to hide them from prying eyes.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
Quote:
As a long time critic of any ranking systems, which I feel are largely bogus, I do hope the data provided in the Common Data Set would be readily available to students. This data is important to many students and they can prioritize which criteria are most important to them. </p>

<p>The nature of the ranking systems will always render them imperfect and prone to criticism. The questions to ask are, "Would be better off today without the pioneering efforts of USnews 25 years ago?" and "Can we trust the schools to deliver transparent data without pressure from outside groups?" </p>

<p>I believe that considering that in December 2007, it is STILL hard to find verifiable and useful data about the admission for the class of 2011, we know the answers to the above questions. Some schools find it easy to upload their CDS forms as soon as they become available; others go through extreme lengths to hide them from prying eyes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Which was exactly my point on the previous page. If USC, Penn, Colgate and other highly selective schools REFUSE to publish thier CDS today, (bcos obviously, they believe it is not in their best interests to do so), why would they publish the data for the Ed Con?</p>

<p>
[quote]
New system would rely on descriptions...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Puhleeeezzzeee: might as well put their college catalog online; oh, wait, it already is online. Perhaps, Fitzsimmons will ask the H Marketing Department to revamp their catalog to support "different means of information". Nevertheless, this will turn us back to the old ways of doing things since the prospective families will see only what the colleges want them to see, prior to USNews analyzing objective and subjective data.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
Puhleeeezzzeee: might as well put their college catalog online; oh, wait, it already is online.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>An apt comment. That was my LOL of the day. Colleges describe themselves all over the place--certainly all over the Web--but can I believe the descriptions?</p>

24

<p>Corporate America figured out a long, long time ago that there was no future in taking on Consumer Reports, no matter how flawed the methodology in the particular case.
The only reason I can figure why some colleges are persisting in this futile effort is moral smugness, or the "old boy" admissions system brilliantly sketched by xiggi a few posts back (#15).</p>

25

<p>danas - thanks for that post - now this discussion is getting interesting and starting to touch on the heart of the matter but, if you ask me, the key post is Tokenadult's and the issue at stake is public trust. Gardner et al. would undoubtedly be fascinated by the responses generated on this thread. I know I am, just as I am as always firmly vested in cheering in favor of the free spirit of open debate. Thacker may be a charlatan, a patsy, or even a cagey business wheeler-dealer for some (and in Xiggi's case, all three rolled into one) but the fact of the matter he is out there and, from the looks of it, will be there for a while to come. This may be a case of "Promises, Promises" but promises that institutions with clout and a profound stake in the public trust have chosen to bet on so that he can put their money where his mouth is - will the Mellon Foundation be proud of their investment? That is, again, another question. Going back to an archived Inside Higher ed article, educators, admissions counselors, and others interested in admission reform engaged in heated debate and discussion asking whether or not college admissions is “at a watershed” . In this new flat world of college admissions, that was about the only point that everyone could agree to agree upon. The topics under the microscope ranged from holistic admissions to early decision to ranking, and, of course public trust - what is it and how to gain it rather than just "regain" it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Robert S. Lay, dean for enrollment management at Boston College, said that he saw the trends today combining in ways such that educators have “lost control of the process.”</p>

<p>Lay and others cited the growth in “stealth applications” — applications from students who prior to applying never had any official contact with anyone at the college. Such students believe they can figure out all they need to know by browsing a college’s Web site (and all the unofficial information that is present online), and they don’t want to hear from admissions offices. “There is a lack of trust students have in us,” Lay said...</p>

<p>Barbara A. Gill, director of undergraduate admissions at the University of Maryland at College Park, said she also saw “a loss of public trust.” </p>

<p>Now, he said, “students don’t want to be counseled,” at least not by anyone affiliated with a university admissions office...</p>

<p>While some at the meeting were talking about the need for idealism and values, others explored how colleges can attract more students and dollars (while maintaining that doing so was the best way to advance their values).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Jobs</a>, News and Views for All of Higher Education - Inside Higher Ed :: Angst Over Admissions</p>

<p>The great boom in the use of the media and the internet - that includes blogs and other information websites - is under the microscope here and a fixation on Thacker's personal qualities or lack of them merely obfuscates the issues. I think it is safe to predict that USNWR rankings (and Consumer Reports) will be around for a good long time and will adapt to keep its consumer niche and well-earned public trust. I also think that most parents and students will simply shrug their shoulders at the subtleties of the debate and simply want to google search and click to find the information they need or want - as Tokenadult has pointed out, with the fewer clicks the better. Most of the parents and students I know are not simpletons, however, and won't settle for second rate especially when what they are looking for in higher ed is a first-rate education. What is at stake here is not how to earn the public trust or manipulate it but how to make sure that the information offered is the real deal and not just window dressing for what is perceived to be a new "old boy" system.</p>

<p>and lest we forget which side the ox is being gored, there is always this valuable contribution to the world of internet ranking methodology:</p>

<p>
[quote]
For the seventh straight year, the CRS found that US News' college ranking is fraudulent in at least two ways: 1) it tries to make quantitivate distinctions between universities on the basis of statistically insignificant differences; 2) it jiggles its methodology every year to make sure its rankings change in order to generate public interest. It should be noted that US News fired its investigative reporting staff in May 2007. It is no longer a viable magazine of journalism. Instead it makes its money by fooling the public with its rankings.
[/quote}</p>

<p>College</a> Ranking Service (<a href="http://www.rankyourcollege.com">www.rankyourcollege.com</a>) Home Page: Dedication, Devotion, & Service</p>

<p>College</a> Ranking Service: Ranking Choices</p>

26

<p>I'm not so convinced by criticism of U.S. News by a business competitor. It happens that I don't regard U.S. News very much most of the time when I look at college data. For example, I compiled by list of outstanding</a> colleges without referring to U.S. News at all. But I certainly welcome, as I did when compiling that list, anyone else who has an opinion on colleges to bring it on, and let people know what colleges they think should be considered by students looking for a good college experience.</p>

27

<p>dear tokenadult, business competitor? who? where? please take just a second or two of your time to click on the links provided and actually read the thing. It might even put a smile on your face, or then again, maybe not.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
the CRS found that US News' college ranking is fraudulent in at least two ways: 1) it tries to make quantitivate distinctions between universities on the basis of statistically insignificant differences; 2) it jiggles its methodology every year to make sure its rankings change in order to generate public interest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The problem with CRS's quote is that they lose their credibility by making unsupported claims: "fraudulent"? Why, how? WRT #2: proof, please?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The Board of the College Ranking Service....remains anonymous...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, ain't that a paragon of transparency? The CRS could be run by Lee Stetson or Lloyd Thacker or Richard Atkinson for all we know.</p>

29

<p>Asteriskea, since I am not certain about how serious you were when quoting the CRS, I'll refrain to comment on your quotation of that NC-based "organization." </p>

<p>Of course, fwiw, I still wonder why S.R. aka Rumpelstiltskin needs to remain anonymous, especially for his works of fiction. I've to admit that his published works tend to be as crystal clear as water can be. :)</p>

30

<p>It's funny that there hasn't been a link to the Onion here yet.</p>

31

<p>Unfortunately, there is nothing jocular about the Education Conservancy.</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
While some at the meeting were talking about the need for idealism and values, others explored how colleges can attract more students and dollars (while maintaining that doing so was the best way to advance their values).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Add in those colleges that want to hide their data (as they do their CDS) and those that want to climb the rankings and are happy to play the USNews game, and "what we have here is a failure to communicate." (props to you xiggi if he get the quotation, which is way before your time)</p>

<p>But, more importantly organizational theorists call it Goal Conflict, and IMO that is the biggest impediment that the Educrats have to address in developing their own version of the "real deal."</p>

33

<p>Good point, BB and this is really nothing new at all. Which is why some find SR's message to be as crystal clear as water in 2007 as it did when the spoof ranking site first began. Still, the jester in S.R. has a thing or two to say about flawed methodology and educational core values. It is also true that even this is imperfect and prone to criticism. </p>

<p>The Numbers Game, and the Rules for the Game:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Rojstaczer told The Chronicle of Higher Education that “there is no rational basis to numerically ranking American universities and colleges.” Rational or not, college rankings are one aspect of the number-one—or at least a prevalent—cultural phenomenon. Amazon.com ranks book preferences and Consumer Reports ranks refrigerators...
Why the preoccupation with college rankings? According to a 1997 study by UCLA’s Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, “Choosing a college is an intangible, expensive purchase perceived to be fraught with risks, and parents and students may be using national rankings as impartial sources of reliable information. The more uncertain the decision, the greater the likelihood that consumers consult ratings information in an attempt to lower their risks.” To the extent that they validate a decision steeped in ambiguity, resorting to rankings can even be emotionally soothing...</p>

<p>“The students who are using the rankings are precisely those students who have fine-tuned perceptions of what’s important in choosing a college and who already know, and act on, notions of which institutions are ‘best.’ Newsmagazine rankings are merely reinforcing and legitimizing those students’ status obsessions.”...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Duke</a> Magazine-The Numbers Game-Sep/Oct 2001</p>

<p>SR's analysis of "SHYMP" schools and college rankings could easily be titled “Show me the money!”</p>

<p>
[quote]
Go to College</a> Ranking Service: The Classic Method and hit the refresh button on your Web browser a few times. I'm sure that you'll agree that the rankings created by the simple "wealth plus noise" formula look virtually identical to those generated media rankings of universities over the last dozen years. If they look the same, shouldn't they have the same degree of validity?...</p>

<p>While wealth is a very good indicator of media rankings, it's worth examining whether wealth is a valid measure of the quality of an undergraduate education. I'll admit that it is a useful partial measure. Money, like a high ranking, counts for a lot.</p>

<p>But it isn't any measure of the extent to which faculty are dedicated teachers. It fails to identify those universities that maintain demanding academic standards for students. It doesn't tell anyone whether the high tuition most of these institutions advertise scares away students of the middle class and poor. It completely misses the value of having a racially and ethnically diverse student body, and offers no indication of how well an institution accommodates diversity.</p>

<p>Given that they don't yield any new and useful information, parents and students don't have to bother with the rankings and buy the magazines. If you're simply concerned about prestige, go to the wealthy institutions. But if you're mainly concerned about the quality of education, then you're going to have to be your own judge...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>College</a> rankings and university wealth, rankyourcollege.com</p>

34

<p>I've to admit having the hardest of time to follow the direction of this discussion. How do we exactly reconcile Stuart Rosh's spoof with a serious discussion on college rankings, and especially the US News? </p>

<p>As far as the EC, should we not first attempt to ascertain if Thacker has developed a consistent and logical attack on the negative impact of the rankings? We all know what he'd LIKE to do. Unfortunately, his record speaks for itself. For all the noise, his summer blitzkrieg amounted to a direct attack on the EXACT part that is controlled (read manipulated) by the schools themselves: the infamous peer assessment! Thus, so far, were he to succeed (unknowingly, of course) he'd also make the USNews better and stronger --if the irrational and biased PA was eliminated. Broken clocks still show the correct time twice a day.</p>

<p>Would Thacker like to attack USNews methodology? Probably! Alas, for him to attack it, he'd have first to understand its technical aspects. And that is seemingly too high a hurdle!</p>

<p>PS BB, should we rename Thacker "the Captain" or Luke?</p>

35

<p>Xiggi, thanks for posting that bringing up SR's site is not to your liking because you have a difficult time reconciling his jocular jibe against ranking colleges with a serious discussion on the subject - views that over the years many serious folks agree mesh nicely with educators' views on the subject of admissions reform. (That poor ox is getting gored on many sides and I did not think it necessary to state that the linked Duke piece and S.R.'s own article from 2001 are indeed deeply serious). Professor R. is a man of self-professed many hats including academic and scientist. He is not afraid to wear the jester's mask but he is nobody's fool. His message is quite clear even as he plumbs the deep and murky well of the college admissions game. The Jerry Maguire quote "Show me the money" can easily be followed by his question "Who is coming with me?" As I have posted many times before, I am sure you have not forgotten the "Admissions Revolution" thread, Thacker's and his outfit represents only one voice out there calling for admissions reform - if he has gone fishing and is reeling in donations that will produce yet another admissions resource site this is a development worth following. Unless the job is utterly botched he will gain supporters from among those engaged in education (in and out of the Ivory Tower). This is all inextricably connected with public trust and Gardner et al. are busy doing all that good work on this subject that probably does in some shape or fashion even address the issue of goal conflict.</p>

<p>I would not consider comparing Thacker to Touchstone or Feste and do not expect to rename him MISTER Tibbs either. That said, and in the spirit of show not tell, I believe I have answered your question about how we look at the goings on at the EC differently - and may I remind you, I have not pronounced any conclusion or endorsement of the EC - unless you take my interest in admissions reform and willingness to wait and see what comes out of all this as such.</p>

<p>The</a> Jester's Mask - Literature</p>

36

<p>The Daily Princetonian reports on this story, telling us that P.U., along with other peer colleges including MIT and Dartmouth, have joined to fund a new rankings list. You might have to read that title twice and then again:"U. funds new rankings list". I guess it is hard to even think about giving up a mind-set geared toward that coveted no.1 spot even when educators and administrators appear to agree that there are perceived flaws in all ranking systems as well as in "the artificial standard by which the outside world judges" quality IHEs. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Despite the University's public support for the alternative system, the U.S. News rankings that the new system will compete against have consistently boosted Princeton's public image and contributed to its prestige. Since 2000, the magazine has ranked the University as the top college in the country, and the University has repeatedly publicized these results. Last year, for example, the University's website featured an announcement touting the newest rankings.</p>

<pre><code>Nonetheless, administrators have repeatedly stressed the limitations of the rankings and said the University does not consider its U.S. News status to be of significant importance. In 2004, Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel told The Daily Princetonian that she had "always believed that the U.S. News rankings are of very limited value."...
</code></pre>

<p>The tension between the University's eagerness to publicize its top ranking and its declaration that the rankings don't matter comes amid the movement of several think tanks and schools toward promoting alternatives to a system they consider to be flawed...</p>

<p>The Education Conservancy is one among many groups that have criticized the U.S. News ranking system...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The</a> Daily Princetonian - U. funds new rankings list</p>

37

<p>
[quote]
That said, and in the spirit of show not tell, I believe I have answered your question about how we look at the goings on at the EC differently - and may I remind you, I have not pronounced any conclusion or endorsement of the EC - unless you take my interest in admissions reform and willingness to wait and see what comes out of all this as such.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Asteriskea, I beg to differ! While we do indeed look at the "goings" of the EC differently, I don't think you have neither shown or told HOW they could be positive. I was not interested in in reading more quotations and more excerpts from the Chronicle about the disjointed efforts of the EC, as much as I was interested in your undiluted opinion about the same. </p>

<p>Oh, as far as the ex-Duke professor goes, there is a more than a fine line between fiction and scholarly research. I maintain that the Saturday Night Life type built by SR does not advance the discussions positively, and neither did bringing up that site without full and immediate disclosure of it being nothing but a silly joke. Of course, it it meant to draw a conclusive parallel to the soundness and importance of the EC, I may change my opinion.</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
He is not afraid to wear the jester's mask but he is nobody's fool.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>He doesn't understand that the first job of a jester is to be funny, not dull.</p>

39

<p>For some one who produces a steady stream of engaged, out-of-the-box material, obviously loves the art of parody, and describes himself as being a full tilt science geek who finds certain avenues of research boring, (as he does the atmosphere at Ivies) and relishes being called as rare as a duck in a tree, I'll bet Stuart Rosh has been called a lot of things over the years but not dull. I wonder what he would say if wrote that one up in his blog.</p>

40

<p>To anyone who followed this discussion</p>

<p>Please note that Lloyd Thacker has abandoned plans to unveil his “'Beyond Ranking” web site and has sold his soul to none than the College Board. </p>

<p>Just I predicted this snake oil salesman has found the deep pocket master he so desperately wanted to serve.</p>